Maintaining Traditional Sacraments
Defenders of the traditional liturgy are in a minority in the Church today. To employ the language of strategists, they are waging an unequal battle, of the feeble against the mighty. But the “feeble”, with God’s assistance, have the supreme strength, that of the just cause: in terms of the substance of the faith, seeking to deprive the Christian people of the immemorial liturgy of the Roman Church is gravely unjust, since the Tridentine liturgy is manifestly a privileged vector of the deposit of faith.
Consequently – and this is the very crux of this article – the transmission of this doctrinal and spiritual treasure which, by its very nature, partakes in the traditio of the Good Deposit, must be integral. Yet today, with Traditionis custodes, we are witnessing an onslaught that can best be described as a sort of whittling away: the Tridentine Mass is conceded, but in the form of an ever-dwindling tolerance (as can be seen in the bans, and rumors of bans, on pilgrimage Masses); and traditional sacraments are rigorously banned.
The relativity of new liturgical laws in the Church’s present situation
We are living through an exceptional, totally atypical Church crisis, and it is essential to avoid considering the abnormal as normal. Declining to accept the Mass and the liturgy, presented as being Catholic to the faithful by the authority of the Church, is in itself inconceivable, since by presenting it as such, the latter is acting according to its own sphere of competence, that of teaching and sanctifying. This unwillingness is inconceivable, unless, in the exceptional situation in which we find ourselves, those in authority promulgate laws that are not really laws at all.
For, just as the Church’s pastors issued “merely pastoral” teaching at Vatican II, so likewise they also devised a new, more or less informal way of understanding the meaning of divine worship: changeable and less stringent liturgical norms, numerous options constantly being proposed by new books, ample room left for interpretation – with regard to meaning as well as to “theatrical” performance – on the part of the celebrants. And this less “rigid” worship also allows the message it conveys to be more flexible: the Mass is less clearly sacrificial, adoration of the Eucharist is less marked, the ministerial priesthood is less distinguished, and so on. In order to convey a feeble doctrinal message, a vague rite was composed, one which is not really binding. This mysterious abstention on the part of those who have the authority to teach the faith, and who fail to do so, is the crux of the Church’s mysterious crisis over the last half-century. Yet, though the new liturgy is not structured like a real law, it nonetheless very much presents itself as binding. The new liturgy imposes itself like an ideology.
However, it had to contend with the sense of the faith. In his book, Histoire de la messe interdite [History of the Forbidden Mass][1], forbidden in 1969 by the ecclesiastical hierarchy, Jean Madiran explains how, despite this formal ban on preserving the old liturgy[2], the instinct of the faith led a growing number of priests to continue celebrating it for a growing number of the faithful. This non-obedience with regard to the official prayer of the Roman Church, and the way in which the Holy Eucharist is celebrated, could only be justified by the fact that the obligation was not a law. Due to the fact that it was detrimental? That is the question addressed to the teaching authority of the Church, to which the latter will one day need to respond. But for the time being, because of its present abstention, and as a protective measure, as jurists are wont to say, we must consider that this obligation/interdiction, obligation of the new/interdiction of the old, does not carry the force of law.
In the end, this is what the Roman authority in charge of this obligation/prohibition decided – dare we say acknowledged? As we know, the “great rejection” of the new liturgy by a substantial number of priests and of the faithful was legitimized by two successive texts, inspired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, to whom this dossier had been entrusted by John Paul II: the Letter Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta of 2 July 1988, and finally by a third document likewise promulgated by Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of 7 July 2007.
“The new Ordo was promulgated in place of the old,” Paul VI had stated on 24 May 1976, in the constitution Missale Romanum. In spite of this, Joseph Ratzinger never ceased to support, and to incite support, for the interpretation according to which an absolute ban on the old missal “could not be justified either from a juridical point of view, or from a theological point of view”[3]. And as a result, Summorum Pontificum, in its 1st article, asserted as self-evident that the Tridentine Missal had never been abrogated. However, no explanation was provided.
Benedict XVI’s juridical legitimization of the non-use of the reform by a certain number of Catholics could only be based upon a fundamental legitimization of the reasons for their refusal. Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger had always admitted – albeit minimally, though very clearly – that the liturgical reform was not a good reform. In 1966, in a lecture in Münster, where he was then a professor, followed by another in Bamberg, at the Katholikentag (the biennial gathering of German Catholics), he attacked the “new ritualism” of liturgical experts who were replacing ancient customs with the fabrication of dubious “forms” and “structures”, such as the obligatory celebration of Mass facing the people. He explained this further in La mia vita[4], underlining the radicality of the deconstruction/reconstruction: “We demolish the old edifice to build a new one.”
In this, he concurred with the general sentiment among Catholics, that everything had been turned upside down, whether they were for or against this upheaval. Those who were against it spoke of a protestantizing tendency: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had attacked it in 1975 in La messe de Luther[5]; Julien Gracq, coming from a secular background, in a certain sense went even further, noting that Protestantism “suddenly seems – compared to this stripped-down, intimate agape – finely orchestrated, delicate and elaborate.[6]” Then came Pope Francis’ reversal of jurisprudence: Paul VI, in his view, had indeed intended to obligate/forbid. We now find ourselves faced with two opposing interpretations of the binding force of the new liturgy by the popes in charge of its application: that of Francis in Traditionis custodes, art. 1: the new liturgical books “are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite”; and, counter to this interpretation, that of Benedict in Summorum Pontificum, art. 1: the Tridentine missal is “to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”. One cardinal, who shall remain nameless, tried his hand at a fifty-fifty synthesis: “Benedict permitted too much; Francis has forbidden too much.”
Juridical obscurity is increasing:
- Traditionis custodes grants to bishops the possibility to make very limited concessions regarding the usage of the 1962 Roman Missal, and implies an obligation to have recourse to the new sacraments and other ceremonies of the Ritual and of the Pontifical.
- The Responsa ad dubia of the Congregation for Divine Worship of 4 December 2021 makes clear that it is indeed no longer possible to celebrate according to the Roman Ritual and the Roman Pontifical prior to the Vatican II reform (i.e. the typical edition of the 1952 Ritual and the typical edition of the 1961 and 1962 Pontifical)[7]. It is therefore not permitted to confer baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, the sacrament of penance and extreme unction, nor to bless marriages, to recite the Divine Office, at least in public, to celebrate funerals, to make holy water, to bless houses, medals, etc., according to the old form. And yet, oddly enough, the bishop may grant permission to personal parishes, erected in order to celebrate the traditional liturgy, to use the forbidden Ritual, but not the Pontifical[8].
- In addition, a decree published on 11 February 2022 allows members of the Fraternity of St. Peter “to administer the sacraments and other sacred rites, and to perform the Divine Office, according to the typical editions of the liturgical books in force in the year 1962, i.e. the Missal, the Ritual, the Pontifical and the Roman Breviary”. The decree specifies that they may use this faculty “in their own churches and oratories; everywhere else, they may use it only with the consent of the local ordinary.”
That is, until another reversal of jurisprudence comes along to explain that the traditional Roman Ritual and Pontifical have never been abrogated…
The reasons why it is necessary to hold fast to the traditional sacraments
1 – The new liturgy is not divisible: either one accepts it, or rejects it, in its entirety.
To use Clémenceau’s words about another revolution, the liturgical reform is a block, an indivisible whole, and aims to be such. Precisely from the viewpoint of this reform, what the current provisions propose, by distinguishing mass and sacraments, is inconceivable. Certainly, the reform of the missal is the most important act of the liturgical reform, but the aim of the latter is global. All the books were modified, always profoundly. The comprehensive character of the post-conciliar liturgical reform is clear in its will to manifest, through this reform, a new face of the Church, through the Roman worship in its entirety, transformed in order to offer a lex orandi more accessible to the men of our time (notably, by minimizing the expression of harsh dogmas, both regarding the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, as well as the sacrament of Baptism as a battle waged against the devil and original sin, etc.).
As the celebrations of the other sacraments are less important acts than the celebration of the Eucharist, they garner less interest. The fact remains, however, that it is the entire realm of the Tridentine liturgy which was discarded. In fact, the new liturgy constitutes an alternate universe. Even if Summorum Pontificum speaks of “forms” which differ from the Roman rite, the new rite and the old are indeed two distinct rites, but not in the way that Eastern rites are distinct from the Roman rite: the new rite intends to replace the old, supplanting it as a whole, in its entirety. Indeed, in the liturgy, all the parts cohere and concord with one another around the core, the Eucharist, to which all the other sacraments are ordered. The old missal and the reformed missal are thus the respective hearts of the old liturgy and of the new. Those who refuse the new Eucharistic celebration would be inconsistent if they accepted the new sacraments.
Indeed, it was this intrinsic unity that was highlighted by the first text to recognize the legitimacy of the celebrations of the old rite, the Letter Quattuor abhinc annos, which forbade any comingling of the two liturgies: “There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.” Certainly, in 2007, in the Letter to the Bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI said, on the contrary, that the two “forms of the usage” of the Roman rite “can be mutually enriching”. But this “enrichment”, this comingling, which for the old missal was reduced to the eventual insertion of new saints and new prefaces, was, for the new one, subversive in character. For Paul VI’s missal, the possibilities for enrichment were as broad as they were vague: through contact with the old Missal, “the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.”
2 – The old liturgy forms a coherent whole: if the old missal is used, the other books must also be used.
If the new liturgy forms a block, then the old liturgy is likewise a coherent whole that cannot be dissociated. Historically, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, after some hesitation, chose to adopt the latest typical editions of the Tridentine Missal, the Tridentine Breviary and the Tridentine Pontifical, from 1961 and 1962, for reasons of convenience (there were many unsold books available) and of logic: these books contained the Roman liturgy in the state that had immediately preceded the reform begun in 1964. In this respect, speaking of the old missal as the “1962 missal” constitutes a misnomer. It is more correct to speak of the last typical edition of the Tridentine missal. In fact, the missal that followed, the first of the reform, published by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 27 January 1965, although it still contains the Offertory and the Roman Canon and many other ancient texts, ceases to contain in its first pages the bull Quo primum promulgating the Tridentine missal.
Incidentally, it’s worth noting an interesting detail: typical editions are followed by juxta typicam editions. However, the last juxta typiquam of the 1962 edition (which includes the addition of St. Joseph to the canon of the Mass) is dated 1st January 1964, three weeks before the motu proprio Sacram liturgiam of 25 January 1964, by which Paul VI launched the reform by setting up an ad hoc Commission. Paul VI’s first missal is therefore a Tridentine missal…
In line with the decision by Archbishop Lefebvre, the liturgy offered by traditional priests was generally celebrated according to the main typical editions in force in 1962, namely :
- that of the Roman Missal, dated 23 June 1962;
- that of the Roman Pontifical, dated 13 April 1961 for the 2nd part and 28 February 1962 for the 1st and 3rd parts, as well as for the appendix;
- the Roman Breviary, dated 4 February 1961;
- the Roman Ritual of 25 January 1952;
- the Roman Martyrology of 1914 (with the latest variationes of26 July 1960);
- the Ceremonial of the Bishops of 1886.
Naturally, from 1984 onwards, decisions inspired by Cardinal Ratzinger endorsed this informal rule, which was the most widespread among users of the old liturgy: the Letter Quattuor abhinc annos gave bishops the faculty to authorize the celebration of the old rite, stipulating that “these celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin”. For the other books, the norm of adopting the “1962 state”, prior to the reform, was maintained, and was thereafter definitively endorsed by the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (art. 9) and the instruction for implementation, Universæ Ecclesiæ (art. 28).
3 – In the present situation, finding themselves in a minority, users of the old rite cannot afford to make concessions.
We evoked, at the start of our reflections, this situation of a minority which is all the more successful in making itself heard that its cause is in harmony with the essence of the transmission of the deposit of faith, summed up by the concept of tradition. In fact, in this theoretically unequal battle, the “ancients” benefit from the guilty conscience of the “moderns”, along with the latter’s diffuse sense of illegitimacy. But the “ancients” do not in the least hold the reins of power. And this state of affairs entails constraints: any negotiation of their positions, any concessions made, is for them, as things stand, extremely hazardous. Such concessions are dangerous for all users of the traditional liturgy, as we will highlight when discussing the requirements of the common good. On the other hand, once this liturgy has found its rightful place once again, either in the Church as a whole or in certain parts of it, a form of tolerance,granting to users of the new liturgy a transitional process so that they may more easily return to the old liturgy by degrees – a process referred to as the “reform of the reform” -, will most certainly be opportune.
4 – The proposal to celebrate the new rites in Latin is a lure.
The priests and the faithful attached to the old rite are often offered the new sacraments, celebrated in Latin, as a kind of consolation. Certainly, the Latin language, which is highly uncustomary in the new liturgy, in itself brings with it the assurance of a certain dignity in the accomplishing of the rite. While it may not have the same significance as the turning of the altar towards the Lord, it does imply a certain traditionalization of the new sacramental rite. However, this use of Latin remains a decoy, since it is obviously the new content that is problematic. It is even a trap, insofar as its acceptance lends credence to the allegation that the demand for the old liturgy is above all a matter of aesthetic sensibility, in which Latin plays a large part.
In an article in Catholica entitled “La messe de l’avenir” (The Mass of the Future)[9], Fr. Jean-Paul Maisonneuve relates such a proposal often put forward, at the time of the imposition of the new Ordo, to the defenders of the old – including Jean Madiran, Louis Salleron, and even Marcel Lefebvre – to which proposal the latter responded: “We would prefer the traditional Mass in French rather than the new one in Latin.” Maisonneuve comments: “Today, as in the past, we are being offered the celebration of the NOM in Latin, but this is of no interest to us, because it is the substance of the NOM that we reject; on the other hand, we would accept the VOM with broad allowance for the vernacular, on condition that it was not a mere pretext for eventually eradicating Latin, along with Gregorian chant. Besides, notes Jean-Paul Maisonneuve, “Latin has never been a dead language, today less than ever, and often in cultural spheres independent of the Church.” This is all the truer for the sacraments, as the vernacular language has long been introduced into their traditional celebration. This is borne out by the Latin-French Ritual authorized by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 28 November 1947.
5 – Serving the common good of the Church requires everyone to do their liturgical duty, which, in the final analysis, is a matter of the profession of faith.
The Church is a Body, the Mystical Body, within which, moreover, there is that clerical and priestly body which participates in the sacred functions of the High Priest. It does not suffice for us to profess this truth; we must live it. In this mystical Body, but especially in those members who touch the Head of the Body through their sacerdotal being, the virtuous action of each member and of each cleric benefits all the others. And conversely, any individual weakness weakens the entire Body. If it is therefore true that the traditional liturgy as a whole, and in each of its parts, brings fruits of salvation to souls in an eminent manner, it is a grave moral duty, which, in the final analysis, is a matter of the profession of faith, to perpetuate it in its totality, either on the part of the faithful by their request, or on the part of priests and bishops by their celebration. This duty weighs particularly heavily on priests who, by virtue of their personal history or their belonging to some communities, are “specialized” in the traditional liturgy. They must resist any encroachment upon the traditional liturgy. In doing so, they provide powerful support to parish priests who, sometimes with great difficulty, celebrate the traditional Mass and sacraments.
Abbé Claude Barthe
[1] Jean Madian, Histoire de la messe interdite, Via Romana, 2 booklets, 2007, 2009.
[2] The Apostolic Constitution Missale romanum stipulated that the new missal would be obligatory as of 30 November 1969, once the translations had been approved. A note dated 14 June 1971 from the Congregation for Divine Worship confirmed this, specifying that only elderly or sick priests could obtain permission from their Ordinary to use the old missal.
[3] Letter from Cardinal Casaroli, Secretary of State, 18 March 1984. See Claude Barthe, « Le moment Ratzinger et l’officialisation de la contestation », in La Messe de Vatican II. Dossier historique, Via Romana, 2018, pp. 269-272.
[4] Edizioni San Paolo, 1997 – French edition: Ma vie, souvenirs (1927-1977), Fayard, 1998.
[5] ACCR, 2019.
[6] He continued thus: “Huysmans is a good touchstone for detecting the current mutation of Catholicism. What he converted to was everything the Church had just jettisoned, and nothing but what the Church had just jettisoned. It’s safe to assume that conversions of writers and artists will be very rare in the future.” (Julien Gracq, Œuvres complètes, Gallimard, Pléiade, II, p. 290-291).
[7] Typical editions are the reference editions published by the Roman Congregation in charge of the Liturgy (formerly the Sacred Congregation of Rites, now the Congregation for Divine Worship) and are issued as such by decree. After the first editions of the Tridentine liturgical books, successive typical editions were published, taking into account clarifications and modifications (notably due to the addition of new saints’ feasts in the breviary and the missal).
[8] The sacraments covered by the traditional Roman Ritual are, in addition to the Eucharist, Baptism, and Confirmation, when administered by a priest, those of Penance, Extreme Unction and Matrimony. The sacraments covered by the Roman Pontifical are, in addition to Baptism and Matrimony, when conferred by a bishop, those of Confirmation and Holy Orders.
[9] Catholica, Summer-Autumn 2023, pp. 81-84.